Putting the final nail into modern science's coffin

How do you explain that GPS you use? Is it magic and mirrors...just a hint: The minimum error needed for your GPS to work as it does is so infinitely
small that parts go into quantum mechanic realm of understanding.

Can you explain what is it and why it works. No one can. Theories help us to do things in the modern world it does not mean we understand it.. Follow
it back as far as you can. What is energy. What is this 3d space everything exists in. Can we make it or do we just transform what is there...
Elaborate theories exist but really we do not have a scooby..

You said mainstream science 'admitted that relativity is flawed and crumbling'. Show us something from a mainstream science journal, published paper
or even a reputable popular-science publication that admits this.

I think it would be easier an fairer to ask you to show the compatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics.. It just does not fit..

The fact remains that numerous experiments have confirmed relativity. Not being able to reconcile quantum mechanics and either general or special
relativity( you've yet to differentiate or say to which you are referring) is not the same as backing up YOUR claim. You are the one who made the
statement regarding academia making the claim that relativity is "flawed and crumbling" therefore the onus is upon you to support your statement.
It's not up to other posters to chase the ever moving goal posts through the thread.

an experiment without a subject or context of study, nor object of observation, is not a material science experiment, it's a thought experiment.

Yes I agree but I was using it in the context of your point: 'science does not break down the world into a dualistic view' by your own admission it
does..

material science doesn't, it simply records and evaluates the world around us. where is this duality in E=mc^2?

solipsism is a philosophy, it is not founded in material science.

I was simply trying to point out the limitation in the statement you said below. We cannot know everything else exists because we do. I understand
that the premise of science needs an objective reality to exist for science to function. But do not forget this is a premise not a proven truth. It is
a philosophy.

no it is a proven truth. proven with mathematics and physics. there is an objective reality that we all experience. it is not a premise.

if we truly know that we ourselves exist, then by definition everything else has to exist.. if nothing exists except subjective
experience, then material science wouldn't be able to objectively measure anything.
...

you are trying to compare two very different branches of science. philosophical science is the science of psychology, ideology, morality, and personal
consciousness, material science is mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, astrophysics etc, theoretical science is string theory, quantum
mechanics, and unified field theory etc.. the "criterion falsification" or "falsifiability" aspect does not take anything away from what has been
discovered by material science.. if reality is nothing more than the observer's imagination, then it must be a shared or mutual imagination, creating
a "solid" objective reality.

I am not comparing branches of science psychology. K.Popper built the modern framwork in which science works. Every single factuality of science works
within this framework.

i'm afraid you are. you are trying to apply a philosophical model to material science. k popper did not "build the framework in which every single
factuality(?) of science works", not at all. he developed the philosophical theory that states you can never prove anything 100% completely, but his
own theory falls into this as well..

how would Popper deal with a statement like "for every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt."? the hypothesis cannot be falsified by
any possible observation, for there will always be a higher temperature than tested at which the metal may in fact melt.. on logic grounds alone,
total falsification falls down.

Things are only discovered with science using falsification. That is how the wheel turns. You never prove something correct you disprove it.
These are rules of science and they where introduced by Popper.

again this is a contradiction of logic.. things are only discovered using scientific method. the falsification criterion only states that whatever we
discover, is not necessarily the same everywhere. we know that to be true, just look at black holes.

popper held that "a theory is scientific only in so far as it is falsifiable, and should be given up as soon as it is falsified." by applying
popper's account of scientific method, this would have killed the theories of darwin and einstein at birth.. when they were first advanced, each of
them was at odds with some available evidence; only later did evidence become available that gave them crucial support..

you are trying to use philosophical logic and word puzzles to say all material science is unfounded, and you are giving a philosopher credit where it
is not due. science's rules have been around much longer than k popper.

"everywhere we look in the heavens, einstein's theory hits right on the spot." -michio kaku black holes are the one exception to relativity,
because there is no physics currently available to explain infinity.. this does not mean it's crumbling, it just means we need more study.

No there is another exception.. The giant pink elephant in the room.. Quantam mechanics..

quantum mechanics is not an exception to relativity, it's a seperate field of physics.

quantum mechanics is not an exception to relativity, it's a seperate field of physics.

Very convenient answer.. If the glove does not fit change the hand... So I guess what you are saying is relativity works perfectly well when we look
at it from this angel and squinting an eye. Keep on believing if it makes you happy. I can bring a cow to water I cannot make it drink. If you cannot
see the limitations of language, mathematics and science I cannot help you.. Sorry...

quantum mechanics is not an exception to relativity, it's a seperate field of physics.

Very convenient answer.. If the glove does not fit change the hand... So I guess what you are saying is relativity works perfectly well when we look
at it from this angel and squinting an eye. Keep on believing if it makes you happy. I can bring a cow to water I cannot make it drink. If you cannot
see the limitations of language, mathematics and science I cannot help you.. Sorry...

actually it's more like if the glove doesn't fit, tailor a new glove.. relativity does not describe the quantum scale of interactions. relativity is
material physics, quantum mechanics is theoretical physics.

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain
and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to
standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations. For example, while developing special relativity, Albert
Einstein was concerned with the Lorentz transformation which left Maxwell's equations invariant, but was apparently uninterested in the
Michelson–Morley experiment on Earth's drift through a luminiferous ether. On the other hand, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for explaining
the photoelectric effect, previously an experimental result lacking a theoretical formulation.

i'm afraid you are. you are trying to apply a philosophical model to material science. k popper did not "build the framework in which every single
factuality(?) of science works", not at all. he developed the philosophical theory that states you can never prove anything 100% completely, but his
own theory falls into this as well..

Of course his own theories fall into this as well and it doing so illustrate the limitations set upon science in order for it to function. It is a
tool we can use to understand aspects of the universe. Do you think we have invented a tool that can understand the universe in its entirety..

popper held that "a theory is scientific only in so far as it is falsifiable, and should be given up as soon as it is falsified." by applying
popper's account of scientific method, this would have killed the theories of darwin and einstein at birth..

Yes they would have killed theories like Darwinism. Infact there is a strong argument that Darwinism does not fall under the realm of science because
it is not falsifiable.

you are trying to use philosophical logic and word puzzles to say all material science is unfounded, and you are giving a philosopher credit where it
is not due. science's rules have been around much longer than k popper.

and how long do you propose the rules of modern science have been around then and I am not trying to say that materialistic science is unfounded. I am
saying that it is limited by its own parameters.

major paradigm shifts in scientific beliefs over the millennia conform to the system described by Popper.

solipsism is by definition false because it believes everything is falsifiable, if it has one exception, it must be thrown out. if solipsism was not
falsifiable, it would violate the rule that everything is falsifiable, and there itself be falsified.

"the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." -albert einstein, father of modern physical science.

"false words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -socrates, father of western philosophy

indeed, but relativity is separate from quantum mechanics, they describe different levels of interaction. that is the distinction i was trying to
make.. quantum electrodynamics agrees with special relativity.

You shouldn't be so obvious that you didn't watch. But I can't quite blame you. Some would go crazy if they took their blinders off to see just a
glimpse of reality.

and likewise you shouldn't be so obvious that you are completely ignorant to the basics of modern science. whether that ignorance is willful or a
side effect of religious upbringing or some other variable I've not accounted for is irrelevant. the fact remains that you have yet to provide a
shred of real evidence to support your thesis and instead task the other members of the board to do so in your stead while berating us for not being
of clear enough mind to see what you're getting at. You're sorely lacking in some basic communication skills, foremost of which when pertaining to
ATS is that it is the onus of the OP to not just give a thesis statement but support it themselves. but then I totally understand, as you say...some
would go crazy if they were forced to take off the blinders.

As I write these words a conversation exists that I have not shared with anyone until I hit the reply button... Show me the subject and
object...

With pleasure.

The 'I' in 'As I write these words' is the subject of your first sentence. It's object is 'a conversation'. The predicate of that sentence contains
two other nested sentences. In both cases 'I' is again the subject; their objects are, respectively, 'anyone' and 'reply button'.

In the second sentence, 'me' is the subject and the object is 'subject and object.'

Do you take my point now? The division of the world into subject and object is so fundamental to us, it inheres in language itself. It is the way in
which we experience reality. Rational thought itself would be impossible without it.

I know it is possible to experience an apparent elision of this duality under certain unusual mental conditions (meditation, drugs, religious
exaltation) but the hallucination soon fades and normal functioning is resumed. Some hopeful people claim that this abnormal and dangerous
hallucination is actually the normal state of affairs, but this is so obviously a mistake it hardly bears discussion.

If you wish to discuss it, though, let us by all means do so. This thread is such a clusterfoulup another off-topic digression will make no
difference.

Show the compatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics. It just does not fit.

Sorry, I just noticed this.

The apparent irreconcilability of relativity and quantum mechanics is a fascinating problem and one that absorbs the attention of many theoretical
physicists. It does not, however, invalidate either of these theories, which work perfectly well at their respective physical scales.

Relativity and quantum mechanics are also incompatible with Newtonian mechanics. Does this mean Newtonian mechanics is flawed? No, it works
perfectly well within certain limits, just as relativity and quantum mechanics do. The complex orbital calculations needed to navigate the
Cassini-Huygens spacecraft accurately among the gravitational reefs and shoals of the Saturn system are based on Newtonian mechanics, and they work
exceedingly well – no flaws evident anywhere.

True, there is no overarching theory that unifies all physics. The search for one has been the principal object of theoretical physicists since the
1960s. One day, perhaps, a theory will come along that does the job. Relativity and quantum mechanics will not be invalidated on that day, any more
than Newtonian mechanics was in 1905 when Einstein published On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.

You seem to be well up on Popper. Can you explain how his analysis of the scientific method invalidates science or calls its conclusions into
question? I advise a reply in your own words; simply posting a link, video or external quote would raise the unworthy suspicion that you don't really
know what you're talking about.

"Therefor there's a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein's theory of Relativity"

Michio Kaku

Yes I did (and again you show that you love to make assumptions about people).

And you are still not getting it:

The answer of "infinity" when we divide by zero is showing an impossibility to something as we understand it or under the normal laws of physics
(which as been pointed out to you, those laws break down the closer you get to a singularity).

It's simply a math expression to show something. For example let us say you are eating some oranges.

You have 5 oranges, and you eat all 5 of them. Thus 5 - 5 = 0. It is a math expression to show that you no longer have any oranges.
Let us say you go to the store and get 5 more oranges. But let us say that now you have eaten 6 oranges, even though you only actually had 5:

5 - 6 = -1

-1 is an imaginary number. It is an expression that is saying that some how you ate more oranges than you actually had. We know in reality that you
can't eat 6 oranges when you only have 5. It's impossible.

The same goes for dividing by zero. It is simply an expression to show that something would take an infinite amount of something to be achieved.

Since you like to pick on poor old Albert so much, let us take a look at his Time Dilation due
to relative velocity:

"Basically, a person gets on a spaceship and starts to accelerate. If they start getting close to the speed of light, they will experience time
dilation where time for them will pass slower than those who are at rest, or moving slower relative to them."

So, how do we express the above with a math expression? Why with this:

Which is defined as: The amount of time dilation is = to the amount of time in flight, divided by the square root of the ship's velocity squared
divided by the speed of light squared and subtracted from 1.

The cool part of math expressions like this is, you don't have to actually use the real velocity of the ship and the real velocity of light, but can
instead use percentages expressed in decimal form and it will work.
So given that "c" will equal 1.00, for 100% of the speed of light.

Now let us give it a quick try. Let us say that our brave astronaut is in a ship and it achieves 98% of the speed of light, and they flew around for 1
year ship time:

"v" is 0.98 and 0.98 squared = 0.9604

"c" is 1.00 and 1 squared is 1.

0.9604 divided by 1 is 0.9604

1 - 0.9604 = 0.0396

And the square root of 0.0396 = 0.198997487421324 (let's round it up to 0.1989 to make things easier).

So now we have the ship's flight time of 1 year divided by 0.1989 which equal 5.027 (again, rounded up).

So the answer is: just over five years will pass here on Earth, while the astronaut only observes 1 year passing by on the ship.

If we keep getting faster and closer to the speed of light, the larger than number will get, even if the trip time is still 1 year. If we increase the
ship's velocity to 99% of the speed of light, the time dilation is 10 years. Increase the speed to 99.9% and the time dilation is now over 31 years.
And it will keep increase, because the trip time of 1 year on the ship, keeps getting divided by a smaller and smaller number getting closer to 0.

And to get to zero, means the ship must have the exact same velocity as light, which means 1 year of ship time becomes divided by zero, or an infinite
amount of time...meaning: it's impossible for the astronaut to get there.

The equations for the energy to accelerate a rest mass to the speed of light are similar to the above equation, with the import part being the divisor
of "v" squared divided by "c" squared subtracted from 1 and the square root. The faster the ship goes, the more energy it requires, and what
happens is you end up dividing by 0 again, showing that it takes a infinite amount of energy to do this, which is impossible with what we have, and
how we understand physics.

So basically, the math is saying we can't accelerate a rest mass of a person to the speed of light, as it will take an infinite amount of energy,
time and change their dimensions. Not unless we figure out how to make that person have no mass or not actually try to expend the energy as we know it
to accelerate something, but instead take short cut (worm holes, warp drive, hyper drive, etc, etc).

So again, dividing by zero is simply expressing a impossibility in a mathematical expression.

It's not a catch phrase in a forum to try and nullify someone's argument that you are loosing.

dont see what is so hard for ppl to understand about this. logic is limited. imagination is infinite. they are separate but work together as one. by
doing so, logic gets a taste of infinity and infinity gets a taste of logic in the middle.

there is no dodging it. it happens everywhere. in every field of science. science just has to learn to come to terms with the fact that infinity
exists. and a calculator is insufficient to process it in calculation.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.